The second Part of this Paragraph.
ONE other poynt only is handled by the Apologer in this Paragraph, which is a large insultation against the Pope, for that he sayth in his Breue,* as heere is alledged, That the Oath cannot be taken with safety of the Ca∣tholicke faith, and of their soules health; since it conteyneth many things, that are playnly, & directly contrary to their faith and saluation. And albeit the word (directly) be conueyed in heere, which is not in the Popes Breue, & is of no small momēt, as all Deuines know in this matter, and therfore ought not to haue byn thrust in, as the Popes word, in a different distinct letter: yet not to stand vpon that, but vpon more grosser poyntes, and more iniurious, he presently vseth the speach, which is reported to haue byn of Auerroes the Mahometan Philosopher against Moyses Law-giuer of the Iewes,*Multa dicit, sed pauca probat, he saith much but proueth little, and presently passeth to this insul∣tation,*How the naturall allegiance of Subiects to their Prince, can be directly opposite (marke how he serueth himselfe of his owne word shifted into the text) to the faith and saluation of soules, is farre beyond my simple reading in Deuinity, as I must Page 50 it a strange and new assertion to proceed out of the mouth of that pretended generall Pastour of Christian soules.
XXXVI. Heere now what abuse is offered to the words and meaning of the Breue, euery simple Reader will see, without any explication from me: for that the Pope doth not prohibite naturall Obedience in things lawfull; nor doth say, that such naturall, or cyuill Obedience is opposite to faith or saluation of soules; nor that the Oath is vnlawfull,* for exhibiting such naturall, or cyuill Obedience: but for that, besydes this exaction of naturall Obedience, which is lawfull, it conteyneth diuers other poyntes also, concerning matters of Ca∣tholicke Religion: which poyntes being so conioyned, and couched with the other, as the one cānot be sworne without those other, do make the whole Oath vnlaw∣full, as it lyeth, without distinction, as before hath byn declared. So as this charge is now proued, to be but a meere cauill, and calumniation, & voluntary mistaking of the question and controuersy in hand.
XXXVII. And yet doth he so insist in it, and so dila∣teth himselfe vpon this false surmised principle (that Cyuill Obedience is denyed) as though all his Discourse and Treatise depended only of this (as indeed it doth,) and therfore he entreth into the confutation therof with a great florish of Scriptures, Fathers, and Councells (wherin he and his do abound, when they say the same that we do, but otherwise are altogether barren) as though in earnest we did deny it: which thing neuer so much as passed through our cogitations, but do hold and teach that Subiects are bound to obey their Tem∣porall Princes in all things lawfull, and those not only good Princes, but bad also: and not only out of feare or flattery, but out of Conscience, as the Apostle teacheth propter Conscientiam,* for Conscience sake, but not contra Conscientiam, against Conscience. Which being so; all is meerly impertinent, that is alledged heere by the Apo∣loger, Page 51 out of Scriptures, Fathers, and Councels, to proue, that which we grant without proofe, & neuer denyed: which is, that temporal Princes are duely to be obeyed for Conscience sake, so long as they command nothing against Conscience. But let them shew but one only Authority, sentence, example or testimony out of any of these three kind of witnesses, Scriptures, Fathers, or Councells, that we must obey Princes against our Con∣science, or Religion, and I will grant he sayth some∣what to the purpose, otherwise he doth but leese tyme, and abuse his Reader in making him belieue, that he saith somwhat when he saith nothing. Let vs examyne therfore some of his examples if yow please.
XXXVIII. He alledgeth for examples out of the Scriptures,* That the children of Israel obeyed the King of Babylon,* as also they exhibited temporall Obedience vnto King Pharao of Egypt;* as in like manner to Cyrus King of Persia:* All which examples we grant to be true, and could ad many more, both of the Iewes, and Christians that lyued peaceably vnder Infidell Princes in those dayes. But lett one example (as I said) be brought forth, wherin they obeyed them in poynts contrarie to their Conscience or Religion, and it shall be sufficient.* We read in the Prophesie of Daniel, that those three famous Iewes, Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago, were most trustie vnto King Nabuchodonosor in temporall affayres, and so much esteemed by him, as he made them his vniuersall Gouernors ouer all the workes of the Re∣gion of Babylon, saith the Scripture: and yet when it came to the poynt,* that he would haue them for his honour and pleasure, and vpon his commandement, adore the golden Statua, which he had set vp; they forsooke him flatly, and said to him in the presence o all his Nobi∣lity assembled togeather, that they were not so much as to answere him in that Commandement, nor would they do, as he had appoynted them.
Page 52 XXXIX. The like in effect did the ancienter Iewes do with King Pharao of Egypt; for that albeit in temporall affayres they obeyed him, euen in that tyme when he oppressed, and persecuted them most: yet in that he would haue had them stay and sacrifice in Egypt, and not follow Moyses their Spirituall Superiour into the desert (notwithstanding that the King had some cause perhaps to suspect their temporall Allegiance, also by that departure, they being a potent multitude of people:) yet would they not obey him, nor do as he would haue them, when they persuaded themselues that God would haue the contrary.
XL. I lett passe how Daniel and his fellowes would not eate the meates of the King of Babylon,* nor Tobie those of the Asyrians,* & much lesse would he leaue of to bury the dead, though it were forbidden by Proclamation vnder payne of death, The Machabees in like manner obeyed King Antiochus so long,* as he commanded no∣thing against their Law and Conscience: but when he went about to force them to sacrifice, and to eate swynes-flesh, and other things against their Law and Conscience, they refused openly to performe that Obe∣dience. So as these places of Scriptures alledged by the Apologer, do proue nothing for him at all, but are rather flatt against him, and for vs, as yow haue seene.
XLI. And much more do make against him,* his Au∣thorityes alledged out of the ancient Fathers, for that they go about to proue the very same poynt that we heere hold, that in temporall & cyuill affayres we must obey dutifully our temporall Princes, though In∣fidels or Pagans: but not in matters concerning God, our Religion, or Conscience. And his very first example out of S. Augustine is such, as I maruaile much, that he would cyte the same, but that somwhat for shew must be alleadged: For it maketh so clearly & directly against Page 53 him, as if it had beene written purposely to confute him in this our case. But let vs heare what it is. Agreable to the Scriptures (saith he) did the Fathers teach.*Augustine speaking of Iulian,* saith thus: Iulian was an vnbelieuing Emperour, was he not an Apostata? an oppressor, and an Idolatour?
XLII. And can any thing be spoken more cleerly for vs,* and for our cause, then this? For euen thus do we offer to our King & Soueraigne: we will serue him: we will obey him: we will go to warre with him: we will fight for him: and we will do all other offices be∣longing to temporall duty: but when the cause of Christ commeth in hand, who is Lord of our Con∣sciences, or any matter concerning the same, or our Re∣ligion; there we do, as S. Augustine heere appoynteth vs, preferre our eternall King, before our Temporall.
XLIII. And like to these are all the other places of Fathers cyted by him, who distinguish expresly be∣tweene the Temporall honour and Allegiance due to the Emperour, and the other of our Religion, & Con∣science, belonging only to God.* And to that playne sense are Tertullians words cyted by the Apologer:*VVe honour the Emperour in such sorte as is lawfull for vs, and expedient for him▪ as a man second after God, and as hauing receyued from God, whatsoeuer he is, and only lesse then God. And will not the Catholicks of England vse this speach also vnto their King? Or will the Apologer himselfe deny that TertullianPage 54 heere meant nothing els, but in temporall affayres, for much as the Emperour at that tyme were Heathen & Gentils, and consequently were not to be obeyed in any poynt against Christian faith or Religion?
XLIV. The like playne doctrine haue the words of Iustinus Martyr to the Emperour himselfe, cyted heere in the third place,* to witt: VVe only adore God, and in all other things wee cheerfully performe seruice to yow, professing yow to be Emperours, and Princes of men. And do not all English Ca∣tholiks say the same at this day, that in all other things, that concerne not God & his Obedience, by rule of Catholicke Religion, they offer cheerfully to serue his Ma.tie, acknowledging him to be their liege Lord and King, & inferiour only to god in his Temporall Go∣uernment? And how then are these, and such other places brought in for witnesse, as though they had somwhat to say against vs?
XLV. The other two sentēces, in like manner cyted out of Optatus,* and S. Ambrose, the first saying: That ouer the Emperour there is none, but only God, that made the Emperour. And the other, That teares were his wea∣pons against the armes, & souldiours of the Emperours: That he neyther ought, or could resist: Neyther of them do make any thing against vs, or for the Apologer, euen as they are heere nakedly cyted, without declaration of the circumstances: for that in temporall affayres the King or Emperour is Supreme, next vnder God. And when the Emperour will vse secular •orces against the Priests of his dominion, they, being no souldiours, must fall to prayers, and teares, which are Priestly weapons. But what? Did S. Ambrose by this acknowledge that the Emperour had higher Authority, then he, in Church∣matters? Or that if he had offered him an Oath, repu∣gnant to his Religion, or Conscience, in those matters he would haue obeyed, or acknowledged his Superio∣rity? No truly. For in three seuerall occasions that fell Page 55 out, he flatly denyed the same, which this Apologer [ 1] craftily dissembleth,* and saith not a word therof.
XLVI. The first was, when he was cited by Dalma∣tius the Iribune, bringing with him a publicke Notarie to testifie the same, in the name of the Emperour Valenti∣nian the yonger, to come and conferre, or dispute with the hereticall Bishop Auxentius, in the presence of his Ma.tie and other of his Nobility and Counsell, which poynt S. Ambrose refused vtterly to do, tellyng the Em∣perour playnly by a letter, written vnto him; That in matters of faith and Religion Bishops must iudge of Emperours,*and not Emperours of Bishops. And dyuers other doctrines, by this occasion, he taught him to that effect, as is to be seene in the same Epistle.
XLVII. The second occasion fell out the very next [ 2] yeare after in Milane,* when the said Emperour, by suite of the Arrians, and fauour of Iustina the Empresse on their behalfe, made a Decree that a certayne Church of that Citty should be deliuered to the said Arrians: which Decree S. Ambrose the Bishop refused to obey. And when the Emperours Officers comming with armes, vrged greatly to giue possession of the Church, he fled to his former weapons of weeping and praying: Ego Missam fa∣cere caepi &c. I began to say Masse, and when the tēporall Magistrate vrged still, that the Emperour vsed but his owne right, in appoynting that Church to be deliuered, S. Ambrose answered, Quae diuina sunt, Imperatoriae Potestati non esse subiecta: That such things as belonge to God, are not subiect to the Imperiall power. And thus answered S. Ambrose about the gyuing vp of a materiall Church. What would he haue said in greater matters.
XLVIII. The third occasion was, when the [ 3] Emperour sent his Tribunes, and other Officers to require certayne Vessells belonging to the Church to be deli∣uered, which S. Ambrose constantly denyed to do, saying: That in this, he could not obey: And further adding, Page 56That if the Emperour did loue him selfe,*he should abstayne from offering such iniury vnto Christ. And in another place, hand∣ling the same more at large,* he saith: That he gaue to Cesar that which was Cesars, and to God that which belonged to God: but that the Temple of God could not be the right of Cesar, which we speake (saith he) to the Emperours honour.
IL. Neyther doth the last place cyted out of S. Gregorie the Great to the Emperour Mauritius make any thing more for our Apologers purpose of taking Oathes against Conscience. For albeit the same Father do greatly complayne in dyuers places of the oppression of the Church by the Kingly power of Mauritius,* whome (though otherwise a Catholicke Emperour) he com∣pareth in that poynt to Nero and Dioclesian, saying: Quid Nero?*quid Dioclesianus? quid denique iste, quihoc tēpore Ecclesiam persequitur? Nunquid non omnes portae Inferi? What was Nero? what was Dioclesian? what is he who at this tyme, doth persecute the Church? Are they not all gates of Hell? Yet in this place alledged by the Apologer, he yealded to publish & send abroad into diuers Countryes and Prouinces, a certayne vniust law of the said Empe∣rours, that prohibited Souldiours, and such as had byn imployed in matters of publike accōpts of the Commō Wealth, to make themselues Monkes: which law, though S. Gregorie did greatly mislike,* and wrote sharp∣ly against it, to the Emperour himselfe: yet to shew his due respect in temporall things vnto him, and for that indeed the law was not absolutly so euill, but that in some good sense, it might be tolerated, to witt, Page 57 that Soldiours sworne to the Emperors warres, might not (during the said Oath & obligatiō) be receaued into Monasteryes, but with the Princes licence: yet for that it tended to the abridgment of Ecclesiasticall freedome, in taking that course or state of lyfe, which ech man chooset• for the good of his soule; S. Gregorie misliked the same, and dealt earnestly with the Emperour to relinquish it, or to suffer it to be so moderated, as it might stand without preiudice of Christian liberty: wherunto the Emperour at length yealded, and so S. Gregorie sent the same abroad vnto diuers Pri∣mates and Archbishoppes of sundry Kingdomes mencioned by him, but corrected first and reduced by himself, as supreme Pastour, to a reasonable lawfulnes, and temperate moderation: to witt, That those who had borne offices of charge in the Common wealth, and after desyred to be admitted to Religious life in Mona∣steryes, should not be receyued, vntill they had gyuen vp their full accompts, & had obteyned publicke dis∣charge for the same. And that soldiours which deman∣ded the like admittance, should be exactly tryed, and not admitted vnto Monassicall habite, but after they had lyued three yeares in their lay apparell, vnder probation.
L. This determineth S. Gregorie in his Epistle,* begin∣ning, Greg•ri•s 〈◊〉 Thessalo•consi, Vrbicio Dirachitano, &c. adding further in the same Epistle, as hath byn said, De qua re, Seren•inus & Christanissimus Imperator omnimdo pl•ca••r: About which matter our most Clement and Christian Emperour is wholy pleased and content. So as in this S. Gregorie shewed his pastorall care and pow∣er, in limiting and moderating the Emperours law, according to the law of God, though in temporall re∣spectes he shewed him the Obedience, that was due vnto him. But what is this vnto our Oath? May we thinke that S. Gregory, that would not passe a temporall Page 58 law of the Emperour, without reprehension of the vn∣lawfulnes therof to the Emperour himselfe, and cor∣rection thero• in the publication, for that indirectly it did intringe the liberty of Religious life, when men were called therunto, that he would not haue much more resisted the admission of an Oath, about such affayres, if it had beene proposed? No man, I thinke, in reason can imagine the contrary.
LI. The last thing thē that is cited without purpose by this Apologer, are certayne Councels, which are said to haue submitted thems•lues to Emperours, as that of Arles in France vnto Charles the Great their King for that in the last wordes of the said Councell, the Bishopps there gathered togeather presenting the same to the same Charles write thus: Hae sub breuitate, quae emendatione digna perspeximus,*&c. These things briefly which we haue seene worthy of reformation, wee haue noted & deemed to be presented to our Lord the Emperour,
LII. But I would aske him wherin? To take any Oath that the Emperour Charles should propose vnto them? Wee see no Oath offered, nor mentioned, and so nothing heere to our purpose. Wherin then, or why are they said to haue submitted themselues? For that, per∣haps, it is said in the Preface of the Councell, that they were gathered togeather by order, and commandement of the said Emperour. Surely it was hard, that so many Bishops, & Archbishops should be assembled togeather without his liking, and Order. But that the consent, Page 59 direction, and chiefe Commission for the same, came from the Bishop of Rome, may easily be gathered: for that in the first Councell that he caused to be celebrated in his Dominions,* which was that of VVormes in the yeare of Christ 770. it was left registred in these wordes: Auctoritas Ecclesiastica, atque Canonica docet, non debere, absque sententia Romani Pontificis, Concilia celebrari. Ecclesiasticall and Canonicall Authority teacheth, that Councels may not be held, without the allowance of the Bishop of Rome.
LIII. And wherin thē? Or why is this submission made? For approbation of matters cōcerning faith? No, for that yow haue heard before out of S. Ambrose, that therin Emperours are not iudges of Bishops, but Bishops of Emperours. Wherin then, or why is this submission, or rather remission to the Emperour, and his iudgmēt? It was, for that this Councell was made onely for refor∣mation of manners and matters, at the religious instāce of the good Emperour,* the effectuating wherof did de∣pend principally of his good will and assistance, and so after the first Canon, where briefly is set downe the Confession of the Christian faith, all the other 25. Ca∣nons (for there are only 26. in all) are about reforma∣tion of matters amisse: as for more diligence in daylie prayer for the Emperours person, and his children, to wit, thataMasses and Litanies be said daylie for them, by all Bis∣hops, Abbots, Monks, and Priests.b That Bishops and Priests study more diligently, and teach the people, both by lessons and preachings:c That lay men may not put out Priests of their benefices, without the sentence of the Bishop, nor that they take money of them for collation of the said benefices:d That none be admitted to enter into the Monasteryes of Virgins, eyther to say Mass•, or otherwise, but such as be o• approued vertue:e How peace is to be held betweene Bishops, Earles, and other Great men, especially in execution of Iustice:f That Page 60 weightes and measures be iust and equall, and that none worke vpon holy dayes:g That all Tythes be payd, all ancient possessions mantayned to the Churches: That no secular courtes be held in Churches, or Church por∣ches: That no Earles, or other Great men do •raudu∣lently buy poore mens goodes, &c.
LIV. These then were the pointes of Reformati∣on, decreed in that Councell of Arles,* at the instance of Charles the Great, who was so zealous a Prince in this behalfe, as he caused fiue seuerall Councells to be cele∣brated in diuers Partes of his Dominions, within one yeare, to wit, this of Arles, an other at Towers, a third at Chalons, a fourth at Mentz, the fifth at Rhemes, and another the yeare before (which was the fixt) Ad Theo∣donis Villam, which is a towne in Luxemburge. All which Prouinciall Synodes are extant in the third Tome of Coū∣cells, togeather, with the Canons and Decrees, which are such as could not be put in execution, but by the temporall fauour, authoritie, and approbation of the Emperour in such matters, as concerned his tempo∣rall Kingdome and iurisdiction. Wherfore if for these respects, the Councell did present vnto the Emperour these Canons to be cōsidered of by his wisedome, whe∣ther any thing were to be added, altered, or taken away, for the publicke good of the Common Wealth (no Con∣trouersy of faith being treated therin) what is this to proue, eyther, that the Emperour in spirituall matters was superiour to the said Bishops, or that if he had pro∣posed vnto them any such Oath, as this is, wherin by professing their temporall Allegiance, they must also haue impugned some poynt of their faith, that they would haue obeyed him? And so much of this Coun∣cell.
LV. And for that, all the other Authorityes of other Councels heere cyted, do tend only to this end of pro∣uing Temporall Obedience, which we deny not, but Page 61 do offer the same most willingly: we shall not stand to answere or examine any more of them, but shall •nd this Paragraph, with laying downe the insul∣tation of this Apologer against the Pope, vpō his owne voluntary mistaking the Question. I read (sayth he) in the Scriptures,* that Christ said, His Kingdome was not of this world, bidding vs to giue to Cesar that which was Cesars, and to God that which was Gods: and I euer held it for an infallible Maxime in Deuinity,
LVI. And I maruaile, that a man professing learning, would euer so tryfle, or rather wrangle, and wrongfully charge his Aduersary: for that I fynde no such thing in the Breue at all, as that Temporall Obe∣dience is against faith and saluation of soules: nor doth the Breue forbid it:* nor doth any learned Catho∣licke affirme, that the Pope hath power to make new Ar∣ticles of Faith: nay rather it is the full consent of all Ca∣tholicke Deuines, that the Pope, and all the Church to∣geather, cannot make any one new Article of beliefe, that was not truth before, though they may explane what points are to be held for matters of faith, & what not, vpon any new heresies or doubts arising: Which articles so declared, though they be more particulerly, Page 62 and perspicuously knowne now for points of faith, and so to be belieued, after the declaration of the Church then before: yet had they before the self same truth in themselues, that now they haue. Nor hath the said Church added any thing to them, but this declaration only.* As for example, when Salomon declared the true Mother of the child that was in doubt, he made her not the true mother thereby, nor added any thing to the truth of her being the mother: but only the declaration. Wherefore this also of ascribing power to the Pope of making new Articles of faith, is a meere calumniation amongst the rest.
LVII. There followeth his conclusion:
LIX. But who doth not see that these be all iniu∣rious inferences, inforced vpon the former false suppo∣sitions, to witt,
LX. Neyther is it sufficient to say, that those tymes and ours are different, for that the things then demaunded were apparantly vnlawfull, but these not: for that, to vs that are Catholicks, these things are as vnlawfull now, as those other were then to them, for that they are no lesse against our Consciences in matters of Religion. For why should it be more damnable then, and indispensable to deli∣uer vp a Byble, or new Testament, for examples sake, when the Emperour commaunded it, then now to sweare an Oath against our Conscience and Religion, when our Temporall Prince exacteth it? For that this, perhaps, is called the Oath of Allegiance? Who knoweth not, that the fayrest tytle is put vpon the fowlest matter, when it is to be persuaded or exacted? And he that shall read the Historyes of that tyme, and of those auncient afflictions, shall see that Act also to haue beene re∣quired,* as of Obedience and Allegiance, and not of Religion, being only the deliuery vp of mate∣riall bookes: and yet did the whole Church of God condemne them for it, that deliuered the same, and Page 65 held for true Martyrs, all those that dyed for denying thereof, for that they would not doe an Act against their Consciences.
LXI. Well then, to draw to an end of this se∣cond paragraph about the two Breues of Paulus Quintus, two things more writeth this Apologer, whereunto I must in like manner say somewhat.
LXII. This was auerred then, how truly or falsly I know not. But many letters and testi∣fications are extant hereof, which were the cause of those demonstrations of Clemens Octauus, to fauour his M.ties Tytle, which he did so hartily and effectually, as when he, after the Queenes death, vnderstood that he was called for into England, he wrote presently the second Breue, exhorting all Catholicks to receaue and obey him willingly, ho∣ping that at leastwise they should be permitted to liue peaceably vnder him. And this is the very truth of those two Breues: nor was there in the former any one word against his Maiesty then of Scotland; and much lesse that he was therin called the Scottish Hereticke,* as Syr Edward Cooke hath deuised since, and falsely vttered in print without shame or conscience. Nor was there any such wordes, as heere are alleadged, against any that would but tolerate the Professours of Protestants Religion: nor was there any such double dealing or dissimulation in Pope Clement his speaches, or doings, concerning his Ma.ty as heere are set downe. But the truth is, that he loued his person most hartily, and alwaies spake honourably of him, treated kindely all those of his nation, that said they came from him, or any wayes belonged vnto him: and often tymes vsed more liberality that way, vpon diuers occasions, then is conuenient, perhaps, for me to vtter heere: caused speciall prayer to be made for his Page 67 Maiesty, wherof, I suppose, his Highnes cannot altogeather be ignorant, and much lesse can so noble a nature be ingrate for the same, which assu∣reth me, that those things vtterd by this Apologer, so farre from the truth, could not be conferred with his Maiesty, but vttered by the Authour ther∣of, vpon his owne splene, against the Pope, and such as are of his Religion.
LXIII. The second and last point affirmed by the Apologer in this Paragraph,* is, that the first of these two Breues of Paulus Quintus was iudged to be farre against Deuinity, Policy, and naturall sense, by sundry Catholicks, not of the simpler sort, but of the best account both for learning and experience among them, wherof the Arch∣priest was one, and consequently, that it was held but for a counterfaite libell, deuised in hatred of the Pope. &c. All this (I say) hath much calumniation in it, and litle truth. For albeit some might doubt, perhaps, whether it came immediatly from the Pope, Ex motu proprio, or only from the Congregation of the Inquisi∣tion, vpon defectuous information of the State of the question in England (of which doubt, notwith∣standing, if any were, there could be little ground:) yet no Catholicke of iudgement or piety, would euer passe so farre, as to iudge it contrary to Deuinity, Policy, or naturall sense, and much lesse, to be a libell deuised in hatred of the Pope. These are but deuises of the Minister-Apologer: and he offereth much iniury to so Reuerend a man as the Archpriest is, to name him in so odious a matter, but that his end therin is well knowne. And if there were any such doubt, or might be before, of the lawfulnes of the first Breue, now is the matter cleered by the second; and so all men see thereby, what is the sentence of the Sea Apostolicke therein, which is sufficient for Catholicke men, that haue learned Page 68 to obey, and to submitt their iudgements to those, whome God hath appointed for the declara∣tion, and decision of such doubts. And thus much about those two Breues. Now let vs see what is said to Cardinall Bellarmyne, for writing to M. Blackwell in this affaire.